So while PL levels are not comparable between energy groups, I’d say that within Threshold I have learned enough about my own performance to create PL-subgroup expectations depending on the profile of the workout. For example, PL level for hard-start workouts like Gould or Whiteleaf is separately evaluated from PL level for over-unders like Palisade or Warlow. Also mixed interval workouts like La Dama Blanca or Heng Shan in my view require managing PL progression in separation from other threshold workouts. At least that is the approach I take…
I focus less on this type of PL-subgroup separation in VO2max workouts, but I can imagine potentially separating PL focus between floating-type workouts such as Hawk’s Bill or Bear from those 120% for 3 minutes repeats like Spencer +2…
I would suggest that might indicate you are very anaerobic and your threshold is less than has been inferred. A high anaerobic contribution to many tests and the ramp test results in a higher threshold than reality.
Having said that, within the TR eco system it almost a given that VO2max levels are much higher than threshold.
I am basically my GF’s “coach”, just because I have been racing for years now and she is new to cycling (ultra runner).
I have roughly double her FTP. Locals would call me “fast”. But I found out during a race warm up last year that her VO2 power was impressive. I thought “I’ll just ride easy next to her”. Nope! I had to work to keep up!
Ok so an update on this. I decided to switch around my week and put the threshold workout at the start, where I’m likely at my most “fresh”.
Trusting AT, I actually took on Mount Baldy +2 which is 5x10 minute intervals, so one more than Mount Baldy BUT, this has 5 minute recovery valleys as opposed to the 3 minutes on last week’s workout. I think this made a difference because during the last 2 minutes of each recovery valley my HR went way down and I felt much fresher going into each interval.
I feel awesome having completed it, so maybe going forward I should consider reducing recovery valleys over time.
If it were me, I’d be choosing threshold workouts around FTP (or just below) that progressed interval duration upwards and interval numbers downwards, so as to develop the muscular endurance that will eventually enable 40-60+ mins continuous around threshold (as opposed to doing larger numbers of shorter intervals).
eg. from Mount Baldy +2 (5x10 @95-99%, WL 4.6) consider w/o’s like these:
3x12 : Marion (0 to +1), Byers Peak -4, Starr King -1
3x15-18 : Mount Goode (-2 to +1), Starr King (0 to +3), Troy Peak, Mount Goode +2, Velume
2x16-24 : Miller Peak, Chiricahau, Mount Wrightson, Kaibab, Gray, Devore (0, +2)
2x28-30: Stepped, Alwhat, Nieras, Zemlya
etc.
These are the types of Threshold workouts I have favourited in the library, and I just ignore all the others that have umpteen intervals in them. Working through some of those I’ve listed to the longer duration intervals will have you capabler of doing 40mins+ continous at threshold, helping confirm your FTP number is in the right ballpark, and possibly turning what may have been a relative weakness into a strength!
If you are TT-er, certainly. Not because of testing as such but to get to know RPE at FTP and learn how to ride right at the edge i.e. just usual workout
But with AT + AI FTP detection, is it really important? Per energy system PL plus honest feedback after each workout should ensure that you get good enough workout next time, regardless of precise FTP number. Beside, for VO2max specifically, we know that it is not tied to specific %FTP anyway, right?
And last, on personal note: because how I train, my TTE is from time to time really stretched out, which has given me wrong impression of FTP increases (a la after Z4 1x70 or 2x40). Whenever I have tested with KM test, FTP has been still within couple watts from AI FTP detection. I do trust AI FTP detection, haven’t bothered testing 1.5 years or so.
I’m, I think.
-5s is only 972w
-5m 370w
-10m 333w
-20m 322w
WKO5 says I’m TT, or at leat an allrounder. My strength is definitely a long shot, not 10/12hrs rides, but 3, 4 hours of good power. Interesting that this 322 was a test done last Sunday after 1:30h riding, which is suitable for me, I don’t like fast starts - hate them to be honest, struggle a lot.
True, if you use power curve based FTP modeling, it requires various duration max efforts indeed. TR AI FTP detection, on other hand, works on trends. This is one of reasons why I do like AI approach better – occasionally I reach “runner’s high” state and do some heroic push but this is definitely not suitable basis for day-to-day training.
What I mostly due is hard but not true max pacing efforts. It’s about knowing yourself. I’ve also got easy to access trend data in WKO, and in Intervals you can see the top 5 efforts at any duration. Just using Intervals.icu setting targets seems like childs play if you are challenging yourself on pacing efforts and spending a couple minutes post-ride to consider how it went and write comments. And bonus, I started doing that 8 years ago so there was no waiting for some fancy tool, and now it is a habit.
For example last night I went out and did ‘time to work on 10-sec sprints’ every 5 minutes during a 90 minute endurance ride. Really just working on form. Here is what it looks like in Intervals for the last couple years (in WKO I have charts):
pretty obvious I haven’t been working really short durations this year, and last night was just the start and I landed at #5 effort from just over a year ago. Last night I was just working on form and not pushing power yet.
In WKO I have a chart showing 10-sec (and other) power:
So I took your advice (thanks again ) and picked out workouts extending the time in zone, and completed Mount Goode -1 this morning (3x15 threshold) and managed to finish it without it ever getting to the point where I felt like bailing.
